D&D 5E Throwing Weapons is Cool! So why is it weak?

[Azurewraith]

While iv been musing I remembered this http://alcyius.com/dndtools/classes/hulking-hurler/index.html

 

[Voi_D_ragon]

So what is the final verdict on this feat? I'd like to get a definitive version before the thread dies.

 

[Ancalagon]

It's because they *actually* suck. Bows and crossbows have far better range and frequently better damage.

Have we seen armies of dagger throwers? By the time we have late medieval-era level of technology, thrown weapons are, at most, a backup. The rules sort of reflect reality.

That being said, it's silly that drawing a dagger to throw it should somehow be different, action-economy wise, than drawing a 2-3 foot long arrow from a quiver packed with arrows...

 

[Azurewraith]

It's because they *actually* suck. Bows and crossbows have far better range and frequently better damage.

Have we seen armies of dagger throwers? By the time we have late medieval-era level of technology, thrown weapons are, at most, a backup. The rules sort of reflect reality.

That being said, it's silly that drawing a dagger to throw it should somehow be different, action-economy wise, than drawing a 2-3 foot long arrow from a quiver packed with arrows...

Pfffft I take your reality and raise you a man turning into a rhino and a second man getting so pissed off he doesn't notice the fireball that just exploded in his face [emoji12]

 

[Xeviat]

It's because they *actually* suck. Bows and crossbows have far better range and frequently better damage.

Have we seen armies of dagger throwers? By the time we have late medieval-era level of technology, thrown weapons are, at most, a backup. The rules sort of reflect reality.

That being said, it's silly that drawing a dagger to throw it should somehow be different, action-economy wise, than drawing a 2-3 foot long arrow from a quiver packed with arrows...

Armies are different than unique, heroic skirmishes. No one uses a short bow on the battlefield either, at least not at medieval times. Few people used two weapons too. PCs are part of teams of 3 to 5ish running against 1 to 12 monsters or badguys, not armies of thousands against thousands.

But yes, the ammunition property should go bye bye and weapons should be drawn for free with the action using them (if they're in a suitable storage location).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guest 6801328]

But yes, the ammunition property should go bye bye and weapons should be drawn for free with the action using them (if they're in a suitable storage location).

I agree with the sentiment, but cringe at the "suitable storage location" bit. I hope we don't get so particular with the rules that we have to define how and where we are carrying things.

Anyway, my vote for a Throwing Master feat:
- Increase ranges by 10' for thrown weapons.
- Drawing thrown weapons is considered part of the attack.
- You can use your reaction to deflect or catch the missile when you are hit by a thrown weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take from the attack is reduced by 1d10 + your Dexterity modifier + your proficiency bonus. (So not as versatile or powerful as the Monk ability.)

 

[Ganymede81]

I agree with the sentiment, but cringe at the "suitable storage location" bit.

Seems simple to me.

"A weapon or piece of ammunition may be drawn from a quiver, sheath, belt, or similar location, for free as part of an attack.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Seems simple to me.

"A weapon or piece of ammunition may be drawn from a quiver, sheath, belt, or similar location, for free as part of an attack.

I agree it's perfectly rational and logical, but how does that work according to the rules? Is there a new column on the spreadsheet for "location", or are players expected to write that in themselves?

Again, I'm not arguing with the logic of it, just saying that the game currently doesn't have rules that say anything about where we store items that we carry, so:
a) In the absence of more specific rules, it's opening up a Pandora's Box to implement one rule that depends on the definitions. (And if it's the kind of table where players and DM don't argue about these kinds of things, they also don't need a new rule.)
b) But even worse would be to actually implement the necessary framework of rules and definitions.

Or, looked at another way, what's wrong with just leaving out the part about where you store it? If you are free to specify that it's stored in an accessible location, why bother to ask anybody to do thusly specify? Who in their right mind would say, "Oh, I put them at the bottom of my pack?"

Way easier to assume that if you're carrying it, it's in a good spot.

 

[Ganymede81]

I agree it's perfectly rational and logical, but how does that work according to the rules? Is there a new column on the spreadsheet for "location", or are players expected to write that in themselves?

Again, I'm not arguing with the logic of it, just saying that the game currently doesn't have rules that say anything about where we store items that we carry, so:
a) In the absence of more specific rules, it's opening up a Pandora's Box to implement one rule that depends on the definitions. (And if it's the kind of table where players and DM don't argue about these kinds of things, they also don't need a new rule.)
b) But even worse would be to actually implement the necessary framework of rules and definitions.

Or, looked at another way, what's wrong with just leaving out the part about where you store it? If you are free to specify that it's stored in an accessible location, why bother to ask anybody to do thusly specify? Who in their right mind would say, "Oh, I put them at the bottom of my pack?"

Way easier to assume that if you're carrying it, it's in a good spot.

If only there was some sort of person in a gaming group that could adjudicate these sticky situations, someone in charge of making rulings on how different novel situations fit into the rules.

 

[Xeviat]

I agree with the sentiment, but cringe at the "suitable storage location" bit. I hope we don't get so particular with the rules that we have to define how and where we are carrying things.

Anyway, my vote for a Throwing Master feat:
- Increase ranges by 10' for thrown weapons.
- Drawing thrown weapons is considered part of the attack.
- You can use your reaction to deflect or catch the missile when you are hit by a thrown weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take from the attack is reduced by 1d10 + your Dexterity modifier + your proficiency bonus. (So not as versatile or powerful as the Monk ability.)

Your feat is solid. I'm not sure if want the "catch thrown weapons" as a generic throwing weapon mastery feat. I'd want something like the ability to throw at multiple targets and not suffering disadvantage when throwing at someone else when engaged in melee.

As for the concern about my specificity, it's more a statement against getting daggers from a bag of holding or concealed weapons. 3E had distinctions on concealed weapons or items in packs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk